The inverse relationship between looks and character

[jophil28]

Absolutely false.



Absolutely true.

But there is a difference between a humiliating response and a cold response, which is really what happens 95% of the time when the chick isn't interested.

I read in your many of your responses that you do not believe in "absolutes" . Now you are saying that you do... ??

The b!tch shield , especially in its worst forms, is still b!tch behavior . Its OBJECTIVE is irrelevant. To excuse its excesses and its implementation as a "filtering" tactic is to rationalise it - I am sure most women who act this way would love your explanation. You just let them off the hook.

 

[jophil28]

So glad we are all (including Rollo) in agreement that Quality is not a myth.

'There is some disagreement here about the application of the word itself . "Quality" implies a value judgement but those "social scientists" who have been indoctrinated by 'post modernist' dogma are repulsed by such judgements.

The wisdom of making value judgements about human behavior seems to escape them. In the last 40 years or so it has become "unfashionable" to do so.

The 'modernists' had no such reservations.

 

[STR8UP]

Allow me to clarify.

Thr "b!tch shield " is a hostile, arrogant device deliberately aimed at belittling a man who has found the courage to approach a hot woman.

Perhaps "absolutely" was a poor choice or words on my part. But your statement implies that every time a woman gives a man anything other than a cordial "no thank you", she is acting in a hostile, arrogant manner attempting to belittle a man who has found the courage to approach her.

Do you you really think this is the reason why women aren't all cheerful and smiles when they reject your advances?

Now I've not been in a very social mood lately, but I've tried to get myself out of the house and last night I went out with some friends. My business partner was with us, and he basically walked around all night "pestering" women.

I'm not saying what he was doing was BAD, or that some of these women didn't enjoy it, but he walked around grabbing their hair, trying to get their attention as they walked by, etc. It was playful and light, but if I was a chick and I had to walk through a crowd getting pawed at by a dozen different men (and I see it happening all the time in places like this) i wouldn't be smiling and flirting back with very many of them, and that's what these women did. Most just gave a blank stare and kept walking.

Sure, a few women I'm sure get off on "belittling" men, but I would be so brave as to say that with 95% it has nothing to do with trying to make a man feel like sh!t, it's nothing more than a filtering and protecting mechanism when they don't respond warmly to advances.

He has paid her a compliment by approaching her and in so doing acknowledges her attractiveness as well, HE is not deserving of a humiliating response.

And I do absolutely agree that a man does not DESERVE a humiliating response from when he is making an effort. Is it gonna happen? Of course. here will always be b!tches that don't know where to draw the line, but it's the exception, not the rule.

The average or ugly ones NEED to be nicer ot APPEAR NICER in order to sell themseves.Notice my capitals. APPEAR NICER. Very import here. Many not-so-hot women false advertise their true character because they NEED to. Otherwise who would be interested in them?

I think you have brought up a great point.

Is it really that the less attractive ones have a better personality or character than the hot ones, or do they just have more incentive to pretend that they do?

Seriously, I believe that any woman above about a 6 or 7 knows she has enough options that it isn't a matter of the 9 thinking she holds the world and the 7 wondering what she is going to do because nobody will talk to her.

You guys have to remember we are talking about WOMEN here. As a man, unless you are a 9 or a 10, chances are you DON'T have women fawning over you all the time. With women even the less attractive ones are used to getting boatloads of attention.

'There is some disagreement here about the application of the word itself . "Quality" implies a value judgement but those "social scientists" who have been indoctrinated by 'post modernist' dogma are repulsed by such judgements.

The wisdom of making value judgements about human behavior seems to escape them. In the last 40 years or so it has become "unfashionable" to do so.

The 'modernists' had no such reservations.

I have no problem making a value judgment on something that is static and not dependent upon a WHOLE SLEW of factors which are easily faked, or information that is not easily obtained.

In other words, you say that there are "quality" women out there. Most guys would probably define a "quality" woman as a woman who is not a "slvt". Well, exactly what IS a slvt?

See the slippery ground you are trying to stand on?

Sure, an openly promiscuous woman you can easily discount as being "low quality", but do you really think you are so smart that you can determine a woman's sexual past based upon what she tells you or based upon how you perceive her to be?

It's easy to throw out a label, and especially so when it serves to preserve your own ego, but the truth of the matter is, the idea of "quality" is not easy to determine, in fact I propose that due to the complex nature of humans and human interactions, perceptions, lies, deceptions, etc. that it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately slap the "quality" label on a woman.

If you have been married to her for 50 years, you are qualified to make this value judgment. Until I have reached that point (or some point LONG in the future) I will refuse to label ANY woman as "quality".

 

[jophil28]

In other words, you say that there are "quality" women out there. Most guys would probably define a "quality" woman as a woman who is not a "slvt". Well, exactly what IS a slvt?

See the slippery ground you are trying to stand on?

Not me, its not at all slippery where I stand..

You are defining "Quality" for " most guys" as a value judgement based predominantly on her sexual expressiveness. Why? How is it that you speak for most guys?
Where did you gather your data?

The label " quality" carries the strong suggestions that a person (in this context- a woman) acts with propriety and with appropriate judgement in most circumstances. She will consider other people needs,wants, feelings and sensitivies with equal weight and value as her own.This is CONGRUENT behavior and it is socially admirable and desirable behavior.

The "b!tch shield" as a filtering mechanism is crude and primitive at best and disgusting and reprehensible at worst. There is a good reason why the word "b!tch" is used in this term.

I agree that there is a range of "b!tch shield" behaviors. Some are mildly offputting and others, at the extreme end, are crass and offensive. These as designed to wound the guy and humiliate him for his efforts.
There are several acceptable responses available to all women who wish to say "no" to an approaching man. IT costs her nothing to be calm but firm, and politely decline his offer.

 

[jophil28]

... due to the complex nature of humans and human interactions, perceptions, lies, deceptions, etc. that it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately slap the "quality" label on a woman.

Perhaps it is difficult for you and those of you who are willing to tolerate poor behavior because you are too timid or too needy to call crap behavior for what it really is..

I did that a few years ago. I was the most "understanding" guy in the face of atrocious behavior from a HB9. SHe was a low quality woman BUT she was HOT so I overlooked her history and her bad behavior. 5he was used to getting everything she wanted, and foolishly I thought that I was sure to "snare" her into an LTR by being the MOST reliable, steady and tolerant guy that she had ever met.
Guess what happened . I got even WORSE behavior from her so I tried to be even MORE understanding which led to her revealing her lack of character in greater amounts and more frequently..She was indeed exercising her "opportunites for her advantage" as the relativists would claim. However even the most "inclusive" or the most "pragmatic" of observers would probably be appalled by her behavior.

The point I am making is that "quality" reveals itself earlier rather that later. The warning bells start out as tinkles and then become loud clanging fire alarms

It does NOT take 50 years to run the audition or hear the bells. . A few weeks at most.
Thanks to the wisdom from some you here, I now know what to look for, and what to do at the first sign of significant bad behavior.

 

[Janez]

Yesterday I saw beautiful woman that I believe has very good character. Not attention *****/clusterB/whatever beauty, But a girl with a class, great take care of herself and down-to-earth.

But since we only walked by it might be just a false assumption and first impression. I believe small share of women are actually beautiful and with good down-to-earth character. But it is minority.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

So glad we are all (including Rollo) in agreement that Quality is not a myth.

I dislike the term "Quality" as most guys on SS would present it. In my experience "quality" has become a limiting term of convenience to allow AFCs to stay in that mindset. The way it's come to be defined is more of a Buffer against rejection than any realistic estimation of who would or wouldn't make a good LTR partner for them - and this is only exacerbating a problem for guys who shouldn't be concerned with monogamy in the first place at their stage of maturity. If a woman blows them off because they flubbed an approach or they simply haven't put in the effort needed to make themselves better, it's far easier to find fault in the woman by calling her "low quality" and staying stuck in that mental state than actually doing any real self-analysis or being self-critical. Got no game in the clubs? That's OK you wont meet any "Quality" women there anyway, so why bother, right?

Conversely, when a guy fixates on one woman (ONEitis or otherwise) and she does reciprocate intimacy - or even the prospect that she might - she becomes "quality" for no other reason than she's accepted him, or she may in the future. Again, it's shooting the arrow, painting the target around it and claiming you got a bullseye. Necessity becomes a virtue for a guy who can't understand why his methods and beliefs aren't paying dividends because it's more comforting to force-fit any limited success as justification of those beliefs than it is to uncomfortably change one's ideas, change one's mind and be self critical.

 

[STR8UP]

That's a very good point. It's the male version of a *****y woman complaining that there is a shortage of "good men."

True, but I think that this is only part of it.

I don't think that it is always a matter of a man trying to protect his ego, I believe it is also a matter of a man trying to hold onto a romantic ideal.

I have stated this before. The Myth of the Quality Woman is yet another layer of the matrix. Most men on here are in agreement that The Soulmate Myth is exactly that- a myth. But they still hold onto this romanticized notion that there are twp categories of women, which you can use to neatly classify someone based upon a bunch of subjective criteria that is based more upon a guess than anything.

Doesn't mean that women can't be "good", it just means that you have to understand that at their core, the majority of women are very similar, and most of them fall toward the middle of a very subjective spectrum when it comes to whether they are "high quality" or "low quality".

 

[jophil28]

Most men on here are in agreement that The Soulmate Myth is exactly that- a myth. But they still hold onto this romanticized notion that there are twp categories of women, which you can use to neatly classify someone based upon a bunch of subjective criteria that is based more upon a guess than anything.

Again you are assuming a lot about your knowledge of what " most men"
think.
I can find little evidence on this board to support your assumption that most men see "quality" in black and white ,or, all or nothing terms.

I will hazard a guess that most men are comfortable with the "sliding scale" approach which you wrote about a few posts back.

Secondly, There is also precious little evidence to support RT's assertion ( in this thread ar least ) that mens definition of "quality" is shaped mainly by a woman's acceptance or rejection of his attentions.
The brief debate about the "b!tch shield' centered around HOW she behaved in a social setting when a man approached her and she did not wish to connect with him.
I cannot find much resentment here toward women who calmly or politely resisted men's approaches as such, rather, the objections here were expressed to her egocentric "b!tch shield " methods..

 

[Colossus]

...in fact I propose that due to the complex nature of humans and human interactions, perceptions, lies, deceptions, etc. that it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately slap the "quality" label on a woman.

You can, if you know yourself well enough. I can confidently slap the Colossus Seal of Quality on a woman if she fits with who I am and what I have built in my life. The problem is this takes time; you really have to go through a variety of experiences with someone to see their true nature. But you can pick up cues that will save you from discovering things the harder way, and this doesn't take much time at all. The way in which people handle everyday situations can reveal patterns, and these patterns belie what I would call their character.

So MY seal of quality is for me, and me only. It's sort of an unofficial recognition that this person is ok and I am comfortable continuing the friendship or relationship. I am very careful these days of mentally or verbally labeling a woman as quality unless I have spent a fair amount of time with her. Having the impulse to label someone as quality or low-quality soon after meeting them is just a springboard for judgment and assumptions. It's no different than someone's political affiliation and the associated labels. I have great friends who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, and we see eye-to-eye on many issues. But if we had proclaimed our political affiliations soon after meeting, the friendship may have never developed because of the massive judgment that comes with these labels. That is why I never disclose my political leanings until I am established with someone.



Labeling every woman you meet is judgmental and impetuous. But let's face it: there are some real gems out there and there are plenty of bad apples, and we have to call a spade a spade if we are to separate the rotten apples from the ripe. You have to have your own standards and non-negotiables.

 

[KarmaSutra]

You can, if you know yourself well enough. I can confidently slap the Colossus Seal of Quality on a woman if she fits with who I am and what I have built in my life. The problem is this takes time; you really have to go through a variety of experiences with someone to see their true nature. But you can pick up cues that will save you from discovering things the harder way, and this doesn't take much time at all. The way in which people handle everyday situations can reveal patterns, and these patterns belie what I would call their character.

So MY seal of quality is for me, and me only. It's sort of an unofficial recognition that this person is ok and I am comfortable continuing the friendship or relationship. I am very careful these days of mentally or verbally labeling a woman as quality unless I have spent a fair amount of time with her. Having the impulse to label someone as quality or low-quality soon after meeting them is just a springboard for judgment and assumptions. It's no different than someone's political affiliation and the associated labels. I have great friends who are on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, and we see eye-to-eye on many issues. But if we had proclaimed our political affiliations soon after meeting, the friendship may have never developed because of the massive judgment that comes with these labels. That is why I never disclose my political leanings until I am established with someone.



Labeling every woman you meet is judgmental and impetuous. But let's face it: there are some real gems out there and there are plenty of bad apples, and we have to call a spade a spade if we are to separate the rotten apples from the ripe. You have to have your own standards and non-negotiables.

"He's right Williamson."

 

[Jeffst1980]

"Quality" from the AFC perspective is a subjective term. That's the only way in which "quality" could be used as a buffer against rejection.

However, "Quality" should most certainly be viewed as an objective categorization based on observable character traits and past behavior.

A woman that has cheated on her last 3 boyfriends will probably cheat on her next one.

A woman that has never cheated and values a stable marriage and family life probably never will.

There is nothing controversial about those statements. We don't have a crystal ball, but we DO have observable traits and history.

To say that a "quality" woman is a "myth"--that you are essentially rolling the dice on every woman you date--or, alternately, that you are solely responsible for "taming the shrew" as it were, is ludicrous. People--men and women--all fall in various areas of the morality/integrity compass. We all know people that are untrustworthy. We all know people that are honest. This applies to women just the same.

After several months of dating, a woman of low quality will exhibit red flags. A high quality woman will not. That's how I define quality.

 

[jophil28]

That is all that needs to be said. It is that simple, gents.

 

[guru1000]

The women I have labeled as QUALITY, were always congruent in their actions. Not only in my presence, but in their past told to me from others who know them. It is no surprise that these QUALITY women have shared a common opinion from all who know them.

A low quality girl shares a common ground amongst all that know them as well. You can see some hints of their past based on their present behavior.

There is a clear difference between these two types of women.

An AFC with little experience might be unable to distinguish the difference. But certainly anyone with their fair share of experiences could tell in a handful of dates who is a worthwhile quality candidate or not.

I'd be as bold to say that within the first date, I am able to tell if this girl is Quality just based on my impression. This may be the reason why many women disqualify themselves through their unspoken words for a second date.

Just like looks are subjectively scaled, quality is the same. This doesn't change the fact, that a girl has to merit a certain degree of quality to interest a quality man.

If I were white trash for example, I might not be able to clearly see the difference in quantitative quality. I might label a girl of higher quality as "High maintenance" or "Rich girl".

However quality to me is neither. It is simply how a woman carries herself in both my presence and when no one is watching.

 

[STR8UP]

So let me ask you this.

Have you ever labeled a woman as "quality', just to have her prove otherwise at some point in the future?

How do you reconcile this?

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

In my last post I was describing how the Myth of the Quality Woman is used as an insulation against rejection or a Buffer for the AFC ego. I see this "Quality Woman" rationalization, and variations of it, literally everywhere. There are countless ego-protections that both sexes use; the most common for men being the objectification of women. Before you write that off as feminist jingoism, think about it for a moment. It's much easier to accept the self-image reality of rejection if you're being rejected by an object rather than a real person. Both sexes objectify in different ways. The High Quality - Low Quality woman rationalization is simply one more objectification in this regard.

Now, all that having been said, perhaps there ought to be a separation from this AFC pitfall of ego-protection and some genuine, viable qualifications and determinants of personal, individual character. I think this ends up becoming a point of confusion for the SS moralists; in describing the Myth of the Quality woman from the perspective of it being an AFC social contrivance, there are some who'll see this as excusing undesirable behavior. Let me state now and for the record, recognizing a behavior (including it's prompts and it's latent functions) is NOT condoning that behavior. The problem with an absolutist perspective is that it blindly refuses to understand the motivations that prompt a particular instance of behavior and equally dismisses the intended function of that behavior.

Personality is not static. The person you are today is not who you were 2 years ago. Your personality has been subtly, often imperceptibly, molded by your individual circumstance, environment and personal conditions. There are core traits and beliefs we tend to cling to in the long term, but even these are subject to modification throughout our lives. Anyone thinking personality is fixed needs to speak with a returning veteran suffering from PTSD, or a former AFC who's changed his mind about himself and become a DJ – personality is very malleable. So, what you temporally perceive as being core "quality" in a woman's personality (or anyone's for that matter) is going to be subject to change. "I never saw this coming", is often the reaction from the guy being served divorce papers from his "quality" wife of 20 years. Was she really not "quality", or did the circumstances change in his LTR and he failed to read the intent and purpose of her behavior leading up to it?

We should also take into account our own influence upon that person's "quality" character in reaction to expectations. I'd like to think that my wife of 12 years is of high "quality" and we have a mutual respect. However, were I to backslide into an AFC, I can't think of a better way to lose that respect and prompt "novel" behavior on her part. Behavior is conditional. Perhaps she wouldn't cheat on me, but that lack of respect would prompt her to change her attitudes and behaviors. Even observing a process will change it, so we cannot turn a blind eye to our own influence upon behaviors that we think should determine "quality" of character for that other person. A lack of respect for your father is influenced by your own behavior, while your complete respect of a drill sergeant is also the result of your own behavior.

There is also the issue of that particular "quality" person's behaviors being intrinsic and genuine, or contrived and calculated as a method of maintaining reward. From a psychological school, I'm a strict behaviorist. I'll be the first person to point out that what a woman says means far less than what she does. Behavior is the only real indicator of motivation and intent. I don't subscribe to the idea that women send "mixed messages". I realize that's controversial, but understand that what most men think is contradictory messages is usually their own inability to interpret that behavior as being the message itself. The medium IS the message. As JOPHIL has astutely pointed out, a woman's behavior is an indicator of her intent - THIS I'll agree with. The debate is about what that intent is and what purpose it hopes to achieve.

In terms of a woman employing a b!tch shield, the question is she genuinely a b!tch and if not why is she using a b!tch shield? The absolutist is going to say "well, she's acting a' b!tch so she's a b!tch" and move off because he's intimidated by an HB 9 with a b!tch shield in effect and console himself by deeming her "low quality". The behaviorist is going ask "is this girl really a b!tch, or using this shield to ward off insecure guys she'd rather not feel a need to entertain?" It's similar to a PUA using C&F or Negs to achieve rapport - is that who they're comfortable being or is it a method (or a series of learned behaviors) with an intended result in mind.

Just as an aside here; I think that a b!tch shield isn't so much about a woman's reaction to your approach as it is about an atmosphere of unapproachability she surrounds herself with so you simply WONT approach. This is the filtering mechanism. It ensures that only guys with the self-confidence enough to push past this will approach in the first place. This becomes her first sh!t test essentially. She may or may not politely decline your approach (dubious I realize), but if you self-defeat and don't bother to approach because of your preconceptions of a "Quality Woman", then the b!tch shield has served it's purpose.

It's been suggested by some here that a woman ought to say what they mean and mean what they say; they owe men civility and grace, or at least a polite "no thank you". This is ridiculous for two reasons. First, have no doubt, this graceful, generous rejection is more likely tried over and over again by women in their lives from puberty on, and met with the same result - an AFC simply not getting it as a rejection. Even the most polite rebuffing still holds out the potential that if the guy made a better effort, proved himself, identified with her better, became her "friend" first, she'd accept him intimately. To think that a men in general would have the maturity enough to accept a polite rejection and move on simply isn't borne out over a woman's own experience in her maturation process. How many times have we heard women say "guys just don't get it"? So by the time she's reached her mid 20's and she's dealt with the now predictable results of polite, civil rejections she resorts to ready made social contrivances to filter her potential mates. The b!tch shield, the LJBF rejection, the boyfriend disclaimer, just to name a few, are all contrivances necessary to put her into a better position of sexual selection.

Now, as the mature Man you're saying, "that sucks, she ought to have the 'quality' enough to be civil with me because I'm different", to which I'll say, no, she doesn't. It is incumbent upon you to be the self-confident Man with the sack enough to get past the contrivances she's found necessary to filter out the guys she's attempted to give the polite rejection to all these years. Which leads me to my second reason; you don't want her to be civil in her rejection of you. If such a thing as a "quality woman" exists it stands to reason that a woman aware of this would be looking for a "quality man", yes? This woman does you no favors by being civil with you. You learn nothing by expecting it, or believing you're entitled to it, or dismissing her as "low quality" due to your inability to understand it. Big game hunters don't hunt rabbits, they go after the big game, lions, tigers, etc. something worth their own prowess. So you can keep hunting rabbits and call lions "low quality" or you can learn to hunt big game and reap the rewards. So while it might be comforting to live in a world of complete utopian niceties, where pristine, well reared women offer polite declinations to civil advances from male suitors, and expect them to accept this in gracious maturity, we don't live there. And honestly, you don't want to live there either.

 

[Vulpine]

Indeed, there is no "concrete" or "black and white" definitions when discussing women. It's hard to make emotions finite when considering tangible factors. And, since a woman's operating system is mainly emotional (can't even say that with any certainty), the ideas of "quality" and "character" are gray areas. Even "looks" is a gray area.

Now, we all view women on a "pass/fail" or "go/no go" scale. Either a woman "qualifies" or is "disqualified". That is black and white, but I think we lose sight in arguments that those "go/no go" assessments are based on an acceptable range. There is a range of acceptable looks, a range of acceptable character, and a range of acceptable quality. "Acceptable" is just the chunk of a gray area that suits a particular guy.

The Hotness scale:
( HB1 HB2 HB3 HB4 HB5 HB6 |HB7 HB8 HB9/ )

There is an acceptable range. But, what I would consider "hot", another guy may find completely offensive, so the acceptable range is even a grey area. I wouldn't do a Wisconsin HB6, no way. But, I would do a Florida HB6 or a California HB6 if I was drunk or the chick maxed out the other scales. There are a lot of ranges and grey areas that are far too conceptual to standardize.

The b¡tch-o-meter:
( SUBSERVIENT ||||||||||||| CIVIL ||||||||||||| BlTCH )

I'd like a woman to be more on the passive side of the scale, so my acceptable range is more in the "demure" area. Another guy might like a girl with "sharp wit", "cutting humor", or to just be a "spitfire". They might like a range that's higher in the aggressive area.

The Quality Spectrum:
( WORTHLESS |||||||A|V|E|R|A|G|E||||||| EXCELLENT )

I'm not even going to put my range on there because it should be fairly obvious. I will, however, point out that the quality drops off sharply in the "average" range. I think that we all agree here that the average woman is of poor-to-low quality and the above average woman is closer to the median of "quality".

I would also like to make the point that here, on SS, we easily appreciate the theory of these scales, understand the acceptable ranges, and debate/discuss them frequently. An AFC wouldn't even have "acceptable ranges" or bother to apply a "scale" to scrutinize women: they'd just take what they could get.:nono:

 

[ketostix]

The Quality Spectrum:
( WORTHLESS |||||||A|V|E|R|A|G|E||||||| EXCELLENT )

I'm not even going to put my range on there because it should be fairly obvious. I will, however, point out that the quality drops off sharply in the "average" range. I think that we all agree here that the average woman is of poor-to-low quality and the above average woman is closer to the median of "quality".

I would also like to make the point that here, on SS, we easily appreciate the theory of these scales, understand the acceptable ranges, and debate/discuss them frequently. An AFC wouldn't even have "acceptable ranges" or bother to apply a "scale" to scrutinize women: they'd just take what they could get.

The quality spectrum or continuum is how I described the whole quality debate too. Most women are average and average is in the low quality side. Some women are extreme low quality and even fewer are high quility. Yes there are high quality women but they are few. But what I also say is most women are in the middle of average and they move back and forth along the low to high quality scale.

I think where the debate comes in is it isn't always easy to indentify low quality women, but really it's hardest to determine for certain if a woman is high quality. Guys like Jophil say there are object and easy ways to tell if a woman is low quality. And I agree there are object measures and it's easy to identify low quality behavior. But high quality women is a different story.

What I say is most women women are at times moving around between low quality and high quality. Even a high quality woman acts low quality at times, and it becomes a matter of a high quality woman is a woman who does the lest amount of low quality things and not none.

Women are different from men. Women lack integrity, accountability, and sense of fair play by nature. You would be hard press to find a woman who holds up to the level a man can for honesty, integrity.

 

[jophil28]

It's been suggested by some here that a woman ought to say what they mean and mean what they say; they owe men civility and grace, or at least a polite "no thank you".

Nobody said this in that way..

Women, or men for that matter, do not absolutely "owe" strangers civility or grace or respect in social settings - especially these days.
What has been said here is that women who employ harsh or insulting responses to men who approach them are evaluated as "low quality " women.
Not because she rejected his advances, but because of the ungracious way the she did it.
"B1tchy is as b!tchy does".

These women all have a variety of methods available to them to refuse his offer , most of which do not NEED to be humiliating or sneering or callously insulting - these are choices by her. Therefore she also has a choice to politely refuse.

 

[jophil28]

The behaviorist is going ask "is this girl really a b!tch, or using this shield to ward off insecure guys she'd rather not feel a need to entertain?"

A really smart guy would just move on and not waste his valuable time and effort on that line of investigation .

I can recall two women in my recent dating history who presented that hard "crust". I worked with one and I danced with the other casually in a dance studio.
With a lot of hard work, persistence and tippy toe behavior on my part I broke though that crust and formed a somewhat superficial relationship with both.
However BOTH women resorted to erecting their "bi!tch sheild" when difficulties arose between us.. Nothing good came from either of these women behaving this way. Nothing got in and nothing came out.

AS far as I know, they are still carrying around their "B!tch Shield " ,and both are still alone.